home

If This Is True . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:51:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Rudy Does It In One Sentence

It's unimaginable that you'd leave Saddam in power while fighting a war on terror.

That's the argument the GOP should embrace, seize and use to beat Hillary's campaign into a coma.

- National Review

. . . then how do we leave Iraq?

But of course it is not true. It is obviously false. But understand the mindset from Republicans. All of their Presidential candidates, save Paul, believe this. How in blazes will GOP Congresspersons then end the war? The September fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Republican will NEVER be part of ending the Iraq Debacle. And Democrats better make sure that they are perceived as having tried their hardest gto end it.

< Rudy Was Against English as Official Language Before He was For It | Restore Habeas, Close Gitmo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    If This Is True . . | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Re: Rudy Does It In One Sentence (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    I hope Rudy tries it: "It's unimaginable that you'd leave Saddam in power while fighting a war on terror."

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld secretly visited former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and allegedly offered him freedom in return for a televised request to militants to cease attacks against allied forces in Iraq. The report said Hussein rejected the offer.
    Link

    Non sequitur (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    Rumsfeld didn't offer to return Hussein to power.

    Parent
    He didn't have to. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:14:41 PM EST


    Parent
    No ... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    ... he just sold him the chemical weapons & arms to stay in rule. Just like the US gave the stingers and arms to the Taliban.

    But perhaps they were just 'useful idiots' for the admin ... kinda like some Americans I could name.

    Parent

    hey, be nice to rudy! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    we all know that saddam was personally piloting one of those 747's, when it slammed into the world trade center towers.

    it's well known that he alone survived, and was spirited back to iraq, by agents of mossad.

    this was all part of the trilateral commission's plan for "one world" govt.

    or something like that.

    Stating something obviously false (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Lora on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    ...is deception.

    That's the mindset of the Republicans.

    Sure it is. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    They want people to waste time and energy debunking falsehoods as a diversion from what the rethugs are really doing.

    Parent
    Democrats have no interest in leaving Iraq, either (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by dkmich on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 04:49:42 PM EST
    If they did, they would have stripped out the benchmark that calls for the privatization of Iraq's oil.  Pick your source

    It IS "about the oil, stupid." (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Lora on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:00:41 PM EST
    As Gravel said in the debate:  

    "They could end the war if they want to."

    Parent

    I'll tell ya.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:03:21 PM EST
    what is unimaginable...leaving George Bush in power, or putting the Ghoul in power.

    Sadly No (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    Both are imaginable. That is what makes imagining those options so intolerable.

    Parent
    By (none / 0) (#31)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 05:58:19 AM EST
    ghoul, you are talking of Mrs. Bill Clinton?

    Parent
    This isn't about accuracy, reality or honesty (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    IMO the entire selection process for the GOP candidate (and theme of the campaign) will be about who's more capable of maintaining the official right wing hooey in the face of hard facts that say the opposite.

    Apart from a mountain of ideological flip flopping, the public record of these phonies is a landfill of personal failures to meet the moral values standards they seek to impose on others.

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:06:45 PM EST
    ....the official right wing hooey in the face of hard facts that say the opposite......


    Parent
    There should be a (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:12:44 PM EST
    Conservapedia entry for official hooey.

    Parent
    I Checked (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    There isn't.

    Parent
    Sure there is. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:41:43 PM EST
    The whole thing.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:43:03 PM EST


    Parent
    It's probably under "conservapedia" (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:45:16 PM EST
    in the conservapedia.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:48:04 PM EST
    Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS ....
    .....We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.


    Parent
    Link (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:49:42 PM EST
    conservapedia

    Parent
    Conservapedia needs (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:52:48 PM EST
    a picture on that page.

    "Rudy Hooey?"

    Parent

    This is really getting bad now... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:53:41 PM EST
    Goodnight! ;-)

    Parent
    Sweet Dreams (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:55:59 PM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    Rudy Video Link (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Freewill on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 11:59:04 PM EST
    Something Conservapedia refuses to have discussed about Rudy

    Parent
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 02:18:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Conservapedia claims that (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 07, 2007 at 08:25:53 AM EST
    We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them.
    --Conservapedia:about

    I've spent twenty minutes searching Conservapedia for their "up-front principles" and I can't find them.

    Where are their "up-front principles" published?

    In Wikipedia?

    Parent

    That was pretty lame (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:46:53 PM EST
    I think I'll let myself out the side door for the night now.

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#4)
    by JHFarr on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 01:55:05 PM EST
    And Democrats better make sure that they are perceived as having tried their hardest to end it.

    Boy, is THAT horse ever out of the barn.

    Slight OT: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    Iraq is quickly devolving into uncontrollable chaos now.

    Ankara, Turkey - Several thousand Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early Wednesday...

    It'll backfire (none / 0) (#7)
    by atlanta lawyer on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:39:59 PM EST
    To say we took out Saddam b/c we thought he was apart of the war on terror is one thing (though, a lie).  To say, in hindsight, knowing what we know now, we couldn't fight a "war on terror" w/o taking out Saddam is linking the two way too much. That is the logical extention of neocon thinking, which shows it was messed up to start with.  It's over selling it, and it won't work.  Americans will realize that if removeing Saddam was the sine qua non of your "war on terror" then the admins notion of a "war on terror" is suspect.  I've long thought: "Never underestimate the power of democrats to snatch defeat from the mouth of victory" but good Lord, if that the best repubs have I don't see how we can possibly loose.

    "Loose" we are, though. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 03:43:32 PM EST


    Parent
    If This Is True . . | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment